I am a baby boomer, and I wish someone had given me that advice when I was starting out. My generation was a bit more fortunate in that good jobs were still available -- even pretty goods one -- but as our age started inching toward that of being a senior, employers started easing us out to save money by hiring younger people, paying them less, and denying them the benefits they had given us.

Once when I was in my 30s, a vice president in a very large corporation with whom I had never even spoken, came to my desk and said anyone who works as hard as you should be working for himself. At that point of my life, that was something I could not even consider, having a daughter preparing for college and looking at high tuition payments.

But in 2007, having finished my responsibilities, I walked away from an excellent job and started working for myself. Over a period of time, I have made this work for me, but I have always regretted not having started something of my own on a part-time basis while holding down a position in the orthodox workplace to pay family bills. This is something I now believe every person should do at a younger age, building their own business so that eventually they can work solely as their own boss.

That vice president was absolutely right. Anyone who is willing to work extremely hard at what they do should find a way to channel that for him or herself, not to another.

In the overall scheme of things only YOU can count on YOU to keep yourself employed, and how much effort, research, time and demand for your product or your service will dictate your financial rewards. YOU will never lay yourself off in order to hire a younger person, YOU will never deny yourself needed sick leave or a vacation and YOU will never undercut YOU. Only YOU can count on YOU through good times and bad.

I have known since Election 2000 he had ethical challenges. I am sure most of you know that as well.

I have heard it said more than once that his parents considered him the smart son. You must have read that as well.

It seems every time I hear him comment on something these days, his words make my jaw drop. He is just so simple. Does he actually think we who hear these things take them seriously? Knowing what we know now, he still thinks we were right to attack Iraq? George W. Bush* kept us safe? Call me crazy, but I didn't feel very safe on September 11, 2001, watching the Pentagon burning from downtown DC where I worked.

And when one thinks about the fact Florida is a 2016 must-win for him, why -- knowing there is an overabundance of senior citizens residing in Florida -- would he say he believes we have to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70? What was he thinking! Or was he thinking?

And speaking of "thinking", does he think that Election 2000 happened 15 years ago and everyone has forgotten about it? We the people are just too dense to realize that his manipulations of that contested election and the shady maneuvers that followed were to force the outcome to favor his brother? Catastrophes such as 911, an illegal invasion of Iraq, the 2008 economic crash, and a ten trillion dollar deficit kept off the general ledger for the next guy to fix ensued. We call those debacles collectively the Bush* legacy. That legacy was made possible by Jeb Bush, who greased the road to the White House for his brother -- Florida Supreme Court decision be damned! The right to vote is not necessarily paramount!

Someone should tell these commentators who have reported gushingly about Jeb's intelligence that simply being smarter than George W. does not necessarily a wise man make.... But the fact that some Republicans think he is the right person to occupy the Oval Office is not amazing -- it is terrifying.

Sam

Postscript edit:

Apparently, Lawrence O'Donnell and an election watchdog (his name is something like Fred Wertheimer -- phonetic) also truly find Jeb amazing. Lawrence just reported on his show tonight a 15-page letter has been sent to the Attorney General asking for an investigation as to whether Jeb has violated campaign finance laws. Lawrence said the election watchdog did not bother sending the letter to the FEC since it only investigates civil violations. The letter forwarded to the Department of Justice asserts Jeb has violated criminal law and cites several statutes.

The glaring (pardon the expression) elephant in the political campaigning room is the fact that Jeb has raised through his PAC approximately One Hundred Million Dollars. The current restrictions limit what someone exploring a run can raise to a figure reasonably suited for expenses during the exploration. Question: who needs One Hundred Million Dollars to explore his or her election viability?

I am going to check out a couple of things on Google, and if I find what I am looking for, I will update this edit.

Here is more: check out this truly cool article I found on the Huffington Post: How Jeb Bush Is Thumbing His Nose at Voters with his Super Pac Scheme.

is that the first time you hear it, you are enthralled by every word as the ambiance the song generates grabs your heart and holds onto it. The second time you hear the song is just as enthralling as if you had never heard it. And so it goes every single time the rest of your life you hear that performer sing that song. And that is what this song has done for me.

Goodnight, Mr. Sledge, many of us will never forget your music and will always remember the great pleasure your songs gave us.

We are the first generation to pay for two generations' Social Security retirements funds. Yet, listen to the generation behind us. They have been brainwashed into thinking it is the Baby Boomer generation threatening their future retirement.

In theory, we were to pay for the generation before us, then we would pay for our generation, and after the last Baby Boomer bit the dust, the problem would be over because the next slate of generation of retirees would not be as huge as ours. When that day comes, who here thinks the FICA tax will be lowered to its former normal rate?

I learned about the resentment many in the generation behind us have for Baby Boomers, thinking their FICA is being sucked up by paying for the huge numbers of retirees considered Baby Boomers one day while shopping in a retail store. The young man behind the counter looked at me and smirked, saying, "Boy your generation really did a number on my generation. By the time I get ready to retire, Social Security will not be there." I was very saddened to hear such a young person say this. I asked him who or what was the source of his news, but he did not respond. So I explained to him the 80s' agreement, and asked him to look this up for himself and see for himself we were paying for our own retirement. I told him this misinformation was being spread by Republicans who wanted to assist Wall Street gets its wish to privatize Social Security.

If George Bush* had been successful in privatizing the program, 40 percent of the then current funds would have been lost during the 2008 crash. We can never allow such privatization to happen. The transition costs to convert the program would have been 3 trillion dollars in 2003. The government would not pay for the transition, neither would those slated to administer the program privately, and it was decided the participants would foot the bill by having their benefits cut.

Rupert Murdock was born in Australia, but in the 80s decided he wanted to buy a news station in the United States. Unfortunately for him, U.S. law required one had to be a U.S. citizen to do so. No problem -- Rupert Murdock had a friend in a very high place. That friend's name was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan expedited Murdock's American citizenship application, and enabled Murdock's dream to control a portion of the news broadcast within the United States to become a reality.

Sometimes when one does a favor for a friend, reciprocity comes into play. I am attaching a link which describes Murdock's role in participating in a "Cold-War style propaganda" program. Read the entire article when you have a chance because it will make one's hair stand on end to learn all in one place exactly how much influence this conservative Australian has had in defining what many Americans believe. Of course, many DU'ers know much of this information but perhaps some of the younger members are unaware.

Also, when you read of Murdock's personal perspectives on different issues, you will recognize those perspectives in many of today's Republican politicians. It is good to know where some of this crap originated and how it gets spread around....

The Reagan administration pulled right-wing media executives Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife into a CIA-organized “perception management” operation which aimed Cold War-style propaganda at the American people in the 1980s, according to declassified U.S. government records.

This example of how a former conservative United States President used his position to usher into the United States' broadcasting arena someone like Rupert Murdock and the catastrophic influence Murdock has had on news broadcast to the American people over the decades makes President Barack Obama's Executive Orders look mellow, if only because he has done everything in the light of day for the public to see.

And then of course there were 18 immigrations reforms by recent Republican Presidents, none of which were power grabs simply because none of those Presidents were born in Kenya and all were Republicans. See the difference?

So the next time you hear the Republicans complain about President Obama's power grabs on immigration reform, think of Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdock. No one was throwing the impeachment javelin at Reagan because the Republicans were too busy worshiping him.

If you are reading this thread at this late hour, please give it a kick for the morning crowd.

She takes a very active part in the Clinton Global Initiative. And yes, I do believe that President Obama thinks he owes more to the Clintons than he does Labor.

I also believe President Obama has as a personal goal following the trail of former President Bill Clinton into playing a larger role on the world stage (after he leaves office). Standing by Labor at the expense of Bill and Hillary Clinton gets him exactly nowhere in the aftermath of his two terms.

Don't misconstrue these words as meaning I hold the President in disfavor. I voted for him twice, I believe he has done a remarkable job on handling the economic recovery in the Bush* aftermath, and he has done some very positive things such as ACA. However, he did say in his campaign days, he didn't want to be President of the blue states or the red states, he wanted to be President of the United States. In my opinion, that is exactly what he has done -- lived up to what he said he wanted to do. One cannot say he was not honest about his intentions.

I believe he will be regarded as one of the greatest Presidents we have had sit in the Oval Office.

the same as FDR is by many senior Americans: the best President ever to serve in the White Office. Both stepped out boldly to help the little guy in need and left a legacy of dramatically truly improving the lives of the people they served.

One might say both of these Presidents lifted millions of Americans out of a depression.

In bold contrast, the policies of the Republicans are to repeal the programs of FDR's New Deal and any and all policies of our current President designed to lift the poor, the middle class, and the underprivileged to a higher plane.

And in all reality, that is exactly what is keeping Republicans awake at night -- worrying about who are all these people going to vote for in the next election.

He quotes a conservative commentator from Texas who laments there is no chance for a Republican Presidential candidate to win in 2016. O'Donnell also said the Republicans will not be able to hold the Senate for longer than two years. In 2016, Democrats will be defending one (count 'em again -- one) Senate seat, and Republicans must hold on to 22. O'Donnell said the odds of the latter happening are zero.

Here are four paragraphs from the column he references, but I hope you will find the time to read the entire piece. At one point, O'Donnell said no matter who the Republicans run , they lose. Better still, it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they win. Thinking about all of the discussions we have had here about our alternative choices, this might be the one Presidential race we can run who we want. Think about that. And the reason is because of the Blue Wall, described in the article. Remember that phrase when you get depressed over the events of these days.

Which way is right? With Chris Ladd
The missing story of the 2014 election

Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it.

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.

Behold the Blue Wall:
The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

(emphasis added.)

We have great hope for our political future. Between now and 2016, we need to focus on minimizing the damage the Republicans will do, and we must brainstorm about who we would like to run. If you believe the logic of this article, and I do, we should focus on choosing the candidate who will best serve the public interests and not that of the wealthy -- the one percenters, and the corporations.

and even on our Democratic political website is beyond appalling. This is a technique Karl Rove has hyped the last 14 years in order to pit the younger people against middle-aged and senior citizens. Just looking at the number of references of old, white folks on this one thread alone is unbelievable.

Definition:

Ageism is a type of discrimination that involves prejudice against people based upon their age. Similar to racism and sexism, ageism involves holding negative stereotypes about people of different ages. The term ageism was first used by gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe the discrimination of older adults. Today, the tern is often applied to any type of age-based discrimination, whether it involves prejudice against children, teenagers, adults or senior-citizens.

This is a very dangerous road for people to start down, claiming ageism is not discrimination. If society as a whole buys into that claim, this practice can accelerate to adversely impact other groups of Americans, such as children and teenagers (see the above quote.)

People on this site which are cool with using this term I hope will take a time-out to rethink this practice.

What? Was I so tired last evening I was seeing things on MSNBC’s trailer scrolling across the bottom of the screen? I waited a few minutes, and then THERE IT WAS AGAIN. I had to look this up! A Google search of that tag led me to the address below.

A string of GOP victories in races for governor and secretary of state means the party will control the voting process in key presidential battlegrounds from Nevada to Florida. That’ll allow the GOP to impose restrictive rules about casting and counting ballots that could disenfranchise predominantly Democratic voters.
* * *
It would be a repeat of what happened in 2000 and 2004, when Republican state officials in Florida and Ohio, respectively, gave George W. Bush a massive boost by doing all they could to make it harder for voters to have their voices heard.

As you might expect, I immediately thought of Chris Christie and remembered his saying words to the effect the GOP needed to get control over the voting mechanics in 2016. And there he was -- in the same article!

Chris Christie made clear last week he understood what was at stake. The New Jersey governor and chair of the Republican Governors Association asked a friendly crowd whether they’d rather have Republicans or Democrats “overseeing the voting mechanism” in key states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

The next lane closures Americans may be protesting might be those blocking their access to their 2016 voting location. What are we going to do about it? Sit down and shut up, as Christie would say? I don't think so.

How do we make our voices heard and our votes count in 2016? We need to start thinking about this now....